Readers Write (June 11): Southwest LRT, pipeline protest, air travel carry-on guidelines, prescription drug costs, bias against weight

Kim Crockett ("Southwest LRT: It's not too late to back away," June 10) suggests we should improve access from the Southwest suburbs by moving money earmarked for light rail to highway construction. Transit money is dedicated by law and cannot be moved to highway spending, but Crockett has bigger problems than that. She should consider the cost of what she suggests. We would need to double the width of Crosstown Hwy. 62 through Edina, Richfield and Minneapolis in order to add four lanes. The same would be true to widen Hwys. 100 and 169 through Edina and St. Louis Park. We would need to widen or double-deck Interstate 494 through Bloomington and Richfield. How would we move all those cars into downtown Minneapolis without widening I-394 and I-35W, or by resurrecting the Southwest Diagonal Freeway first proposed in the 1950s? And where exactly would that new freeway run? Perhaps out Hennepin Avenue or even along the railroad corridor currently being held for the Southwest LRT? How many homes and businesses would need to be destroyed in south Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and St. Louis Park, and how many billions would all of it cost? Perhaps the Center of the American Experiment can tell us about those troublesome details.

There is nothing new or useful in Crockett's message. The problem has been studied to death, and Southwest light rail is the answer. It is the quickest, least intrusive and cheapest way to improve access, and it's time we got started with it.

• • •

Regarding Crockett's commentary: Finally, someone making sense. As a business owner in St. Louis Park, I have been involved in a number of meetings for Southwest light rail. Crockett spoke the truth on so many levels that our government leaders do not want to address. This is a boondoggle. It has failure written all over it. But no one has the courage to let a project that already has millions spent on research die.

• • •

Thank you for publishing Crockett's voice of reason in the LRT discussion. The cost and constant conflict around the Southwest line, as well as the inflexibility of trains running on permanent rails, indicates that there is another way to move people around our fair city. It's buses! Crockett has done an excellent job of pointing out the virtues of a sophisticated bus system (like those in Europe, by the way). Developers will find just as many opportunities in such a bus system, and we all will be spared the questionable beauty of big, gray boxes plunked down along light-rail train track.

• • •

Should we force the Southwest line down the throats of people who mostly don't want it? No. The costs are way too high, and ridership might not be worth it.

Last Saturday, some 5,000 citizens met at the St. Paul riverfront and marched to our State Capitol for a rally. This was a city-sanctioned event, no less a sanctioned event than Grand Old Day, the Twin Cities Marathon or a Black Lives Matter march. The purpose of this event was to provide a visible and audible objection to the actions and/or inactions of our elected and appointed trustees regarding climate change and extreme energy extraction. When considering the temporary impact of travel inconveniences, as cited in a June 9 letter, I try to weigh their importance relative to the millions of climate-change refugees and casualties. My regret concerning any inconveniences — and they exist — is muted by the sorrowful recognition that people's lives are at risk.

The June 10 article on guidelines for smaller carry-on bags said that "theoretically" if airlines follow this guideline, we'll have plenty of space for everyone's bag. Wouldn't this be wonderful! What wasn't explained is the "theory" behind this conclusion. Most overhead bins I've used are designed to hold three standard carry-on bags inserted wheels or handle first. So, if the bags are 1/2 inch narrower, that would mean there would be an extra 1 1/2 inches of horizontal space. I suppose if people were willing to saw their bags into 1 1/2 inch slices, they could distribute the slices throughout the cabin and fit in a few more bags. If this nonsense is implemented it will either enrich the airlines (more checked-bag fees) or enrich the luggage manufacturers (new bags for everybody). It's hard to see how there is any benefit for the customer.

On the front page of Tuesday's Star Tribune is an article extolling a new heart medication, with a small note in the corner warning that the drug could cost patients more than $10,000 per year. Then, on the front page of the Business section is a puff piece about how drug firms are getting drugs to market more quickly. Below that article is a warning about the rise in unpaid hospital bills.

Is no one looking at the big picture here? What good is it to create miracle drugs and get them to the people who need them the most faster, when the net result is financial devastation for the patient? From pharmaceutical companies to massive for-profit hospitals, the consumer is being financially raped by an industry that does not know the meaning of the word "unsustainable." American citizens are forced to live with the worst health care system ever devised, which leaves them no choice but to pick between their health and lifelong financial ruin at the hands of a predatory, greedy and incompetent health care system that cares more about money than saving lives.